While he won’t officially take over as CEO of Google until April, the recent full-frontal slapfest on Microsoft’s Bing search engine for shoplifting results from the search giant was so Larry Page in tone and temperament that it brought back memories from many years ago when I covered Google more closely.

Like the time in 2004 when he railed on the investment banking system as Google considered its IPO. Or, a meeting in 2005 when Page aggressively argued minutiae about the size of Google’s index size after Yahoo claimed its data trove was bigger.

And my ears are still ringing from a Googleplex lunch we had in the midst of his ire over a 2005 story on CNET that chronicled a lot of personal information about CEO Eric Schmidt, trying to show how much data was easily available on Google.

Page thought it best to be on the offensive and attack the report as a privacy violation, while I took the position that it was accurate and fair game and you don’t argue with the press and win.

It’s unlikely Page remembers any of this, but I do because I kept notes as part of my ongoing assessment of his characteristics as an Internet leader.

In fact, after our first interview in 2001, my notes on the encounter had this one line underlined and in all caps:

LARRY PAGE=BILL GATES.

It was not meant as an insult, but I can tell you I never wrote such a note about Page’s co-founder, the jokey and affable Sergey Brin.

Even then, Gates had a fearsome reputation as a manically competitive exec, a cutting manner to those not as smart as he clearly is and a reputation as a very tough and often eviscerating boss. (And all that was also my experience whenever I was interviewing him.)

While much wonkier, friendlier and more of a sensitive new-aged male, Page, it seemed to me, had the exact same obvious drive and aggression as Gates.

I stopped covering Google as closely years later–for personal reasons (see disclosure above)–and, thus, largely fell out of regular touch with Page.

But in reading the tough quotes and later blog post by Amit Singhal–quite possibly the sweetest dude at Google–accusing Bing of cheating, it felt like he was channeling Page’s very clear and nerdily indignant voice again.

In a nutshell: We have data to prove Microsoft’s stealing. Look at our detailed proof from our complex sting. We are outraged by this violation of geek code. Don’t you lay people get it?!?

I would wager that we’re about to see a lot more of this pugnacious, in-your-face tone from Google under Page’s leadership, which could have far-reaching implications for the company.

While I have no idea if it was his decision to let loose the dogs of algo-war on Microsoft, many with knowledge of how Google manages its public persona observed to me this week that this was just the kind of popping off that the outgoing Schmidt often tried to mitigate and soften.

But such bravado will play well with Google’s elite and pampered engineering corps in Silicon Valley.

And, in any case, PR considerations have never really been the point for Page, who cares not for how it might come off in the media (which he largely disdains anyway).

Which is to say like a temper tantrum of a very smart and very gifted child, who is probably largely right, but should not be quite so exercised given the level of violation.

No matter, since Page likely still lives and breathes data and algorithms and the Spock-like application of information.

It’s the rest of us who are illogical.

In November, Google sued the Department of Interior, arguing that the Google Apps platform was frozen out of the bidding. Today, a federal judge, Susan Braden, sided with Google by issuing a preliminary injunction preventing the department from deploying Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Suite. Braden also found that Google had made a preliminary showing that the department had violated a 1984 regulation on competitiveness in government contracts.

Google and a reselling partner, Onix Networking, had argued in court that the Interior Department’s request for bids specifically excluded Google Apps by stating the system had to include the Microsoft product.

The case isn’t over, but it’s certainly not looking good for the Interior Department, which may be forced to reconsider Google Apps for the contract.

Rambus, whose nominal specialty is designing ways for chips to pass data back and forth but which is better known for more than a decade of bitter legal battles, earlier this month filed a complaint with the ITC, saying that products from several companies contained chips that infringe on its patents.

As anyone who’s been paying attention to the numerous patent battles around smartphones knows, the ITC is generally seen as a fast track to a settlement of a patent dispute. Since federal courts are slow and litigation is expensive, companies often go to the ITC ostensibly to block the import of products found to infringe on patents. Since practically every technology product is built outside the U.S., sales of an infringing product can be subject to an exclusion order, the usual outcome when a violation is found.

What’s interesting is the wide range of companies that Rambus has named in its complaint: Hewlett-Packard, Cisco Systems, Nvidia, Broadcom, Seagate, Motorola, Garmin, Asus and Hitachi are among the better known ones. The full list contains 34 companies, including some subsidiaries.

Some of the patents involved in this complaint were the subject of a prior case that Rambus took to the ITC against Nvidia. The commission ruled the patents–known as the Barth family of patents–were valid and issued an exclusion order, prompting Nvidia to come to the table and sign a licensing agreement in August. Rambus is obviously looking for a similar outcome from Broadcom and Freescale, which it says are among those now infringing on the Barth patents.

Additionally there’s another set of patents known as the Dally family, which Rambus didn’t invent but to which it holds a license. The patents are owned by MIT and are based on the work of Bill Dally, a former MIT professor of electrical engineering who’s now at Stanford University. The patents had been licensed exclusively to a small private firm called Velio Communications, where Dally had been CTO and which was acquired by the chip maker LSI Logic in March of 2004.

In a twist that could happen only in the strange world that is patent law, Rambus acquired the exclusive license to Velio’s serial interface patents–the Dally family–in a separate deal in the waning months of 2003. The irony is that LSI is among those being sued for infringing on the Dally patents. Some M&A lawyers at LSI must be kicking themselves today.

Among the phones that Sony alleges are infringing on its technology are the Accolate, Encore, enV Touch, Glance, Lotus Elite, Neon, Quantum and Rumor Touch.

The latest legal challenge adds to an already crowded docket of wireless competitors making patent-related claims. Just a partial list of the court battles has Nokia against Apple, Motorola against Microsoft, Apple against HTC and Oracle against Google.

Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith predicted last month that the various players will probably agree on some sort of appropriate royalty streams covering modern smartphones. in the meantime, it looks like the lawyers for all the cellphone makers will remain gainfully employed in 2011.

The release of funds follows a number of denial-of-service attacks earlier this week that were aimed at the document-leaking site’s providers. Most of the providers are now refusing to work with WikiLeaks after the U.S. government accused it of being in possession of documents that were provided in violation of U.S. law.

Yesterday, WikiLeak’s founder Julian Assange was arrested and denied bail in London. He’s accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden.

While PayPal is releasing the residual funds to WikiLeaks, it is not reinstating the ability for it to receive donations.

PayPal was caught up in a brief media storm this morning, after PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier gave the impression at LeWeb in Paris that PayPal had cut off access to WikiLeaks because of direct pressure by the U.S. government.

PayPal now wants to set the record straight, and says that it reviewed its policies regarding WikiLeaks after the U.S. Department of State publicized a letter stating that WikiLeaks may be in possession of documents that were provided in violation of U.S. law. The letter was published, and not sent to PayPal directly.

“PayPal was not contacted by any government organization in the U.S. or abroad. We restricted the account based on our Acceptable Use Policy review,” writes PayPal’s General Counsel John Muller. “Ultimately, our difficult decision was based on a belief that the WikiLeaks website was encouraging sources to release classified material, which is likely a violation of law by the source.”

Further, the company disclosed that twice before–in 2008 and 2009–PayPal reviewed and restricted the account associated with WikiLeaks “for reasons unrelated to our Acceptable Use Policy. As soon as proper information was received from the account holder, the restrictions were lifted.”

PayPal has been one of many providers that have been the victim of computer attacks, where servers were inundated with traffic. A spokesperson told us that it mostly affected the company’s blog site, and did not directly affect its payments services.

Other affected companies include MasterCard and Swiss bank PostFinance, The Wall Street Journal reports. No one is yet claiming responsibility for the attacks, but some say they are being organized by the ad hoc “Operation Payback.”

According to a prehearing examination of the patents at issue in the case by the staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission, Apple hasn’t provided enough evidence to establish a violation of its rights. The ITC’s early read on 13 patents Cupertino has accused Nokia of violating is that some were not violated at all and some aspects of others are invalid.

Now this doesn’t mean that Apple is destined to lose this particular battle; ITC Judge Charles Bullock isn’t obligated to follow his staff’s recommendation. But it is something of a setback for Apple, which has asked the Commission to block the import of Nokia phones into the States.

Some “apps,” the small programs that let users play games or share information with each other on the social-networking site, were sending users’ Facebook ID numbers to third-party marketing or data firms, in violation of Facebook’s privacy policies. An ID can be used to look up a user’s name and other publicly available information on the social network and link it to their use of the app. Such information can be used by companies that build profiles of Internet users by tracking their online activities.

Facebook didn’t identify the data broker that was buying user IDs. But it said it had reached an agreement with RapLeaf Inc., which it described as “the data broker who came forward to work with us on this situation.” It’s unclear whether Facebook is implicating RapLeaf and neither company responded to questions.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

You can read all of U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood’s ruling at the bottom of the post. But the short version is that Wood, using the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision as a guide, found that LimeWire is indeed guilty of copyright violations. In her words:

LimeWire… (1) is aware that LimeWire’s users commit a substantial amount of copyright infringement; (2) markets LimeWire to users predisposed to committing infringement; (3) ensures that LimeWire enables infringement and assists users committing infringement; (4) relies on the fact that LimeWire enables infringement for the success of its business; and (5) has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.

LimeWire is unusual among post-Napster, post-Grokster file-sharing operations in that it operates out in the open, in the U.S. The company, based in New York City and owned by investor Mark Gorton, actually sells a smattering of music itself with the blessing of some of the smaller music labels. But while the company has been engaged in a long back-and-forth with the big guys, it has never reached a settlement.

Meanwhile, almost all of the music available on the service (93 percent, according to a study used in the lawsuit) and even more of the stuff actually downloaded (98.8 percent, via the same study) is protected by copyright and should not have been there. Court documents state that LimeWire generated revenue of $20 million in 2006.

LimeWire does tell its users they shouldn’t steal music. This is the warning you get when you try to do so:

But that’s not enough, Wood ruled. And certainly not when the service was going out of its way to court users searching Google (GOOG) for free tunes. From her ruling:

LimeWire conducted a marketing campaign through Google AdWords, whereby Google users who entered certain search queries, such as “replacement napster,” “napster mp3,” “napster download,” “kazaa morpheus,” “mp3 free download,” and dozens of other phrases containing the words “napster,” “kazaa,” or “morpheus,” would see an advertisement leading them to the LimeWire website.

The next step in the case is a June 1 conference. Here’s LimeWire CEO George Searle’s statement, which doesn’t include a vow to appeal the ruling:

LimeWire strongly opposes the Court’s recent decision. LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission. We look forward to our June 1 meeting with Judge Wood.

And here’s the end-zone dance from Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the music industry’s lobbying group:

This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft.

LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court’s decision is an important milestone in the creative community’s fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire’s CEO personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability.

We are gratified by the court’s careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law.

Bigger question: What does this mean for the music industry? Assuming Wood’s ruling stands, this one will definitely feel good for the labels, and it would have been a very big deal had they lost. But it certainly won’t help them in fighting less formally organized P2P services or those set up outside the U.S.

Arista Records Summary Judgment Opinion

“We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. Our default privacy settings limit the information displayed in your profile to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about.”

–Facebook Privacy Policy, 2006

“When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting….The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.”…Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.”

– Facebook Privacy Policy, 2010

Perfect.

Facebook has enlisted a former senior Bush administration regulator to defend its privacy practices in Washington. Tim Muris, an attorney at law firm O’Melveny & Myers who served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission from 2001 to 2004, is advising the company, whose privacy disclosures and fast and loose handling of user data are increasingly drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, on May 5, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Facebook has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of consumer protection law.

“[The site] continues to manipulate the privacy settings of users and its own privacy policy so that it can take personal information provided by users and make it widely available for commercial purposes,” the Washington-based advocacy group said. “The company has done this repeatedly and users are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry.”

Clearly, the Facebook privacy backlash, which has been building for years now, has begun in earnest.

What better time, then, to seek the help of someone like Muris, who created the popular U.S. Do Not Call Registry and just last week received the Miles W. Kirkpatrick Award “for his significant and lasting contributions to the FTC, antitrust law, and the cause of consumer protection.”

Reached for comment, Facebook said Muris is not an official employee. “There have been some reports that Tim Muris has joined Facebook,” the company told me. “Muris has not joined Facebook.”

But he is serving as a consultant, something sources close to the company have told me, though Facebook declined to comment on.

Let’s make short work of this: Yesterday, the Justice Department named 15 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property program, as well as 20 Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents, to police intellectual property violations, both domestic and international.

The new FBI agents nearly double the number working on copyright issues and will be part of “intellectual property squads,” located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C.

Why all the muscle? Pressure from the entertainment industry no doubt.

Here’s the full press release from the DOJ:

Department of Justice Announces New Assistant United States Attorneys and FBI Agents to Combat Intellectual Property Crimes

WASHINGTON, April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/–As part of the Department of Justice’s ongoing initiative to confront intellectual property (IP) crimes, Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler announced today the appointment of 15 new Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) positions and 20 FBI Special Agents to be dedicated to combating domestic and international IP crimes.

These new positions–announced on the 10th annual World Intellectual Property Day–are part of the department’s continued commitment to combat the growing number of IP crimes here at home, and abroad. The new AUSA positions will be part of the department’s Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) program.

“Intellectual property law enforcement is central to protecting our nation’s ability to remain at the forefront of technological advancement, business development and job creation,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler. “The department, along with its federal partners throughout the Administration, will remain ever vigilant in this pursuit as American entrepreneurs and businesses continue to develop, innovate and create.”

The 15 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys will work closely with the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) to aggressively pursue high tech crime, including computer crime and intellectual property offenses. The new positions will be located in California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

The 20 new FBI Special Agents announced today will be deployed to specifically augment four geographic areas with intellectual property squads, and increase investigative capacity in other locations around the country where IP crimes are of particular concern. The four squads will be located in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and the District of Columbia. The squads will allow for more focused efforts in particular hot spot areas and increased contact and coordination with our state and local law enforcement partners. The 20 new agents will join the 31 agents devoted to investigating IP crimes who have already been deployed to field offices around the country.

“Theft of intellectual property–from inventions to trademarks and copyrights, to industrial designs and trade secrets–is a worldwide problem. It affects individuals and corporations financially and can threaten public safety. The additional FBI agents will significantly strengthen the efforts of our squads investigating intellectual property rights violations and help bring to justice those who seek to profit from intellectual property theft,” said Assistant Director Gordon M. Snow of the FBI Cyber Division.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler serves as chair of the department’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, which was established earlier this year by Attorney General Eric Holder to coordinate the department’s efforts on IP crimes. The task force focuses on strengthening efforts to combat intellectual property crimes through close coordination with state and local law enforcement partners as well as international counterparts. As part of its mission, the task force works together with the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), housed in the Executive Office of the President, to implement an Administration-wide strategic plan on intellectual property.

The task force includes representatives from the offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General; the Criminal Division; the Civil Division; the Antitrust Division; the Office of Legal Policy; the Office of Justice Programs; the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee; the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and the FBI.

World Intellectual Property Day was established by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to recognize the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and enforcing their laws. Each year on April 26th, WIPO and its member states seek to increase public understanding of intellectual property through activities, events and campaigns.

The Santa Clara County district attorney’s office is investigating gadget site Gizmodo’s purchase of the device, according to a report by News.com. Sources tell News.com that the effort is being headed up by the office’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team.

According to those sources, investigators are looking at “whether sufficient evidence exists to file criminal charges,” though they did not say who is being targeted–the person who found Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone protoype or Gizmodo, which purchased the device for $5,000 and revealed it to the world, perhaps in violation of California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, says it hasn’t yet been contacted by law enforcement.

That the agency has decided to investigate does not mean it has an opinion on the merits of the case. Still, the move has got to weigh heavily on HTC, which hasn’t yet even issued a formal response to Apple’s (AAPL) claims. That said, the company seems to be taking it all in stride. Said CEO Peter Chou: “It’s part of business. We need to face it and everyone can talk it through.”

Further Reading:

• Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC Over iPhone Patents
• Apple Sues HTC [Complete Court Filings]
• Why HTC, Apple? And Why Now?
• Apple vs. Google: Game On
• What, HTC Worry?
• HTC May End Up Bringing Knife to Apple Gun Fight
• HTC to Apple: We Built a Touchscreen Phone Before You Did

But while it’s technically possible to use that same technology to Skype with your friends or families or whomever, airlines won’t let you do it.

The reason should be self-evident, but not to Federated Media’s John Battelle. Who apparently does this all the time.

Except on a flight this week, when a United Airlines attendant told him that using Skype in flight is a security violation.

That’s not true. But with the help of the Web–and, apparently, State Department employee Katie J. Stanton–Battelle pieces it together: Airlines ban in-flight video chat because it’s incredibly annoying for everyone who’s not chatting.

Or in Federal Aviation Administration-speak, the airlines are “simply responding to the overwhelming majority of their customers, who prefer silent communications to the public nature of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) calls.”

Battelle insists his Skype chats provoke nothing but “amusement” from his seatmates. But my hunch is that it’s only dumb luck that has kept him from getting pummeled by a fellow passenger to date. That United attendant did him a real favor.

In China, the search giant is battling hackers and the government, who may be one and the same. In Europe, the company is being hauled in front of an antitrust review. And Italy? Total disaster.

Yesterday, an Italian court convicted three Google (GOOG) executives of privacy violations in a case that stems from a clip uploaded to Google Video in 2006. The executives, who include former CFO George Reyes, have been sentenced to six-month prison sentences.

And that verdict follows a December ruling whereby an Italian court found the company guilty of copyright violations on YouTube, the video site it bought in 2006. Mediaset, the broadcaster that brought the suit–and which is controlled by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi–is looking for more than $730 million in damages.

Google has responded to the video convictions with an outraged blog post. Note that the language is more forceful than the company used to describe its China problem. But also note that the company isn’t threatening to pull out of Italy altogether. Maybe it should.

Serious threat to the web in Italy
2/24/2010 01:57:00 AM
In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

But in this instance, a public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees–David Drummond, Arvind Desikan, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes (who left the company in 2008). The charges brought against them were criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video’s existence until after it was removed.

Nevertheless, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 defendants–David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes–for failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them–every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video–then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

Posted by Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel–Europe, Middle East and Africa

“Although the United States believes the parties have approached this effort in good faith and the amended settlement agreement is more circumscribed in its sweep than the original proposed settlement, the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement,” the DOJ said in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,” the report continues. “Under the [revised proposal], Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works–including so-called ‘orphan works’–without risk of liability.”

And then there was this:

Google’s exclusive access to millions and millions of books may well benefit Google’s existing online search business. Google already holds a relatively dominant market share in that market. That dominance may be further entrenched by its exclusive access to content through the ASA. Content that can be discovered by only one search engine offers that search engine at least some protection from competition. This outcome has not been achieved by a technological advance in search or by operation of normal market forces; rather, it is the direct product of scanning millions of books without the copyright holders’ consent.

In other words, the amended deal continues to give Google (GOOG) significant anticompetitive advantages and rewards the company for scanning books in violation of copyright protections. And while the Justice Department did not go so far as to explicitly urge rejection of the deal, it recommended that parties to the settlement make further changes before the Feb. 18 fairness hearing at which it is to be reviewed.

Another setback for Google, or as Gary Reback–a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer who represents Microsoft (MSFT) and the Open Book Alliance, a coalition opposed to the settlement–said, the filing is a “profound embarrassment–bordering on an outright humiliation” for the search company.

Of the 600 financial sector workers surveyed on Wall Street and London’s Canary Wharf who lost or left a job last year, 41 percent admitted to taking confidential company data with them. Exactly half, 50 percent, said they would steal company information if they were fired tomorrow, and 39 percent said they would download it if they felt their job was at risk.

Nearly a third, 28 percent, would use the information to negotiate their next position. The most commonly stolen data: Customer contact lists that could be leveraged at a new job.

Cyber-Ark’s study isn’t the first to uncover such employee sentiments. A similar effort by the Ponemon Institute earlier this year found that close to 60 percent of people who left or lost their jobs in 2008 took company data with them. “I’m not sure that malicious intent and future employment are mutually exclusive,” Larry Ponemon, chairman of the Ponemon Institute, told eWeek at the time.

“Clearly the responses show that obtaining future employment was a significant motivating factor,” Ponemon added, “but when we see a high percentage of individuals who took information knowing full well they were acting in violation of company policy, that hints strongly at the presence of malice.”

Filed last Friday, the latest version of the settlement is more limited in scope, but has still drawn the ire of critics, who claim it remains rife with “anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

Chin evidently disagrees, and Google (GOOG) is obviously quite pleased that he has done so. “The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form,” the company said in a statement.

“We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court,” Google continues, “and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web.”

In a statement of its own, the Open Books Alliance, one of the settlement’s harshest critics, warned Google not to get too, too hopeful. “Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google’s copyright infringement lawsuit,” the group said.

“This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0,” the Alliance warned. “The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.”

Maybe, says CNET’s Greg Sandoval. He reports that Viacom’s attorneys have unearthed emails that indicate that YouTube employees uploaded copyrighted material to the site and that “managers” knew there was copyrighted stuff on the site but didn’t do anything about it.

Those allegations happen to be key parts of Viacom’s (VIA) suit against Google (GOOG) and YouTube, and a good part of what the company has been looking for in the discovery/deposition process that has stretched on for more than a year and is slated to extend through the end of 2009.

Viacom has argued that senior YouTube employees, including cofounders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, knew full well that their site was full of copyrighted material and not only didn’t try to prevent it, but at some point even encouraged it.

So what exactly do the emails say? I don’t know. Sandoval is summarizing the documents, not reproducing them. And if I’m reading his story correctly, he may not have seen them either, but may be relying on someone else’s description of them. (That said, in a separate story, Sandoval does reproduce parts of Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s deposition from the same case.)

Here’s his description:

Lawyers working on a $1 billion copyright lawsuit filed by Viacom against Google’s YouTube may have uncovered evidence that employees of the video site were among those who uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube.

In addition, internal YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site with employees but chose not to remove the material, three sources with knowledge of the case told CNET.

The e-mails, according to the sources who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing litigation, surfaced during an exchange of information between the two sides of the legal dispute.

I’ve asked Sandoval for more information about the emails he’s referring to, but I don’t expect him to say much; anyone who released documents from discovery would be violating a court order. Viacom had no comment. Here’s YouTube’s comment, via CNET: “The characterizations of the supposed evidence, made in violation of a court order, are wrong, misleading, or lack important context and notably come on the heels of a series of significant setbacks for the plaintiffs. The evidence will show that we go above and beyond our legal obligations to protect the rights of content owners.”

From Palm’s webOS 1.2.1 version information:

Feature changes to existing applications
System

• Resolves an issue preventing media sync from working with latest version of iTunes (9.0.1).
• Media sync now synchronizes photo albums, maintaining the album structure in the Photos app.

How did Palm (PALM) do this? By once again making the Pre masquerade as an Apple (AAPL) device. Plug your Pre into your computer and set it to Media Sync and it identifies itself like this:

USB Product ID: 0×1209
USB Vendor ID: 0x05ac (Apple, Inc)
Manufacturer: Apple Inc.

A brazen move, considering the USB-IF specifically warned Palm against doing exactly this in its Sept. 22 letter to the company:

I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.

Now that Palm has “clarified its intent” with regard to this potential violation, I wonder how Apple and the USB-IF will respond. Do they have any recourse? The USB-IF could revoke Palm’s membership in the group, but what would that accomplish? Very little, as far as I can tell. Certainly, it wouldn’t prevent Palm from continuing to update its devices to synch with iTunes.

Reached for comment, Palm declined to offer one. Apple and the USB-IF have not yet responded to my requests. If and when they do, I’ll update here.

UPDATE: Looks like this cat and mouse game is going to go another round. This just in from Apple: “As we’ve said before, newer versions of Apple’s iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with unsupported digital media players.” Presumably, iTunes 9.0.2 will disable Palm’s latest fix.

From Palm’s webOS 1.2.1 version information:

Feature changes to existing applications
System

• Resolves an issue preventing media sync from working with latest version of iTunes (9.0.1).
• Media sync now synchronizes photo albums, maintaining the album structure in the Photos app.

How did Palm (PALM) do this? By once again making the Pre masquerade as an Apple (AAPL) device. Plug your Pre into your computer and set it to Media Sync and it identifies itself like this:

USB Product ID: 0×1209
USB Vendor ID: 0x05ac (Apple, Inc)
Manufacturer: Apple Inc.

A brazen move, considering the USB-IF specifically warned Palm against doing exactly this in its Sept. 22 letter to the company:

I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.

Now that Palm has “clarified its intent” with regard to this potential violation, I wonder how Apple and the USB-IF will respond. Do they have any recourse? The USB-IF could revoke Palm’s membership in the group, but what would that accomplish? Very little, as far as I can tell. Certainly, it wouldn’t prevent Palm from continuing to update its devices to synch with iTunes.

Reached for comment, Palm declined to offer one. Apple and the USB-IF have not yet responded to my requests. If and when they do, I’ll update here.

UPDATE: Looks like this cat and mouse game is going to go another round. This just in from Apple: “As we’ve said before, newer versions of Apple’s iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with unsupported digital media players.” Presumably, iTunes 9.0.2 will disable Palm’s latest fix.